Help prevent development on Wilmslow's green field sites

Promotional Feature

Around 65 people attended last Thursday evening's Residents of Wilmslow 'Open Night' at The Dean Row Chapel Hall, to which all supporters, followers and those concerned with the future development of Wilmslow were invited. In particular the discussions centred on Cheshire East Council's proposed Local Plan.

Following a welcome by the group's chairman, David Lewis, those present enjoyed a question and answer session. A wide range of concerns were expressed at the way Cheshire East had ignored a broad cross section of local opinions on various proposed development sites around the town, including the proposed Adlington Road development (CS25), the Royal London site (CS26) and the proposed Business Park(CS27),both the latter developments on green belt land. Also of concern to many present was the questionable safeguarding (for future development!) of fields on Prestbury Road and at Upcast Lane.

The chairman then presented RoWs advice on how best to complete responses to the Planning Inspectorate and the necessity for doing so. The previously expressed concerns were answered with RoW's views on each of the above CE proposed sites. The audience was reminded that the group had engaged an eminent QC to scrutiny the Council's proposals for Adlington Road. Counsel deemed the authority could be acting illegally if it went ahead with granting planning permission for "Adlington Park" prior to the approval of the Local Plan.

Wilmslow had built or had planning permission for nearly 200 new homes since April 2010, almost half of the total requirement set out by CE to 2030. With this current rate of build there is no need to develop either Adlington Road or Royal London for houses. The question of "employment led growth" allied to the council's "high growth strategy" was a matter of general concern and bewilderment. This was answered by David Lewis stating that such development proposals had not been evidence based but was more of an aspirational dream of the council. With over 130,000sq ft of empty office & commercial space within the town, there is no case for further building of this type on either the Royal London or the Business Park sites; both sites should retain their vital green belt status.

The chairman stated the group may have to resort to further advice from the Queen's Counsel on both Adlington Road and the Local Plan, all of which will entail high costs. Stuart Kinsey, the treasurer, took up this theme, thanking all donors and contributors towards the costs of engagement thus far and appealed for more funds to continue the defence. It was also hinted that RoW may well consider fielding candidates in both the borough and town councils' elections next year. Anyone interested in representing RoW, a non political group, should contact Manuel Golding on 07930 377778 or Stuart Kinsey 07973 529739.

Residents of Wilmslow Executive Committee was thanked by members of the audience for their continuing efforts to save the town from avaricious land owners and developers.

Residents of Wilmslow is properly constituted group that was set up early 2013 to have a say on planning issues in Cheshire East (but focussing on Wilmslow). It comprises some 2,000 local residents from all around the town who are concerned to retain as far as possible the dormitory character of Wilmslow, seek to avoid unnecessary development and protect the greenbelt surrounding the town.

Urgent!

Wilmslow residents have until 25th April to object to Cheshire East building on Wilmslow's green belt and spaces. Here's what you can do to help! Please bear in mind that this consultation closes at 17:00 hours on 25th of April.

Many residents have had real trouble accessing and logging on to the East Cheshire Council website in order to register their objections.

To make things simpler we are suggesting that residents send an email to [email protected] or a letter to Spatial Planning, Cheshire East Council, Westfields, Middlewich Road, Sandbach CW11 1HZ before 5:00 pm on Friday 25th April 2014.

Here's what to do with your email or letter

1. Head it Local Plan Strategy Consultation.

2. Write your email address (not required if sending a letter).

3. Write your full name, address and post code.

Then write in the numbers and titles of the sections below and write your comments. Please try to use your own words from the Residents of Wilmslow views and guidelines below.

Section 4 The case for growth

Employment and Housing

Unsound because it relies on providing employment sites even at the expense of giving up greenbelt in the hope that this will attract inward investment. No rational arguments are put forward to show how economic growth will be generated; it is little more than rhetoric. This section of the plan is unsound because it is not positively prepared insofar as it is aspirational and not based on objectively prepared development and infrastructure requirements.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessments - SHMA (Appendix D Evidence and Links page 409 items 37 and 38) on page 41, 4.18 shows an annual housing requirement for the Borough as a whole of 1050 per year which is much lower than the minimum of 1,350 per year in the Local Plan.(page 60 Local Plan Strategy, Policy PG 1) Also, 4.9 page 41 of Local Plan Strategy highlights the growth of the pensionable age population as does the SHMA at 4.19, but no account has been taken of the need to provide appropriate housing for an ageing population.

Change required – a lower growth strategy and smaller number of houses should be adopted.

Section 15 page 311 site CS 26

Housing - Royal London

Unsound because not positively prepared to meet objectively assessed requirements and not legally compliant because contrary to theNational Planning Policy Framework - NPPF and Nick Boles Guidelines of 6th March 2014 it allocates greenbelt land for housing where no exceptional circumstances apply, makes no allowance for brownfield sites which are available and no allowance for windfall sites.

This site is in the greenbelt and no exceptional circumstances apply that justify house building in the greenbelt. Almost half the required number of houses are already accounted for taking account of house completions since April 2010, houses under construction and for which full planning permission has been granted If available brownfield sites listed in the Strategic housing land availability assessment -SHLAA are taken into account the required 400 houses can be achieved without including this greenbelt site at Royal London. (completed, under construction and with full planning permission 193, brownfield sites from SHLAA 74 plus Adlington Road 203 = 467).

Change required – this site should be removed from the Plan

Section 15 page 308 site CS 25

Adlington Road

Unsound because not positively prepared to meet objectively assessed requirements and not legally compliant because contrary to the NPPF, the site is not sustainable, infrastructure is inadequate, makes no allowance for brownfield sites which are available and no allowance for windfall sites.

Almost half the required number of houses are already accounted for taking account of house completions since April 2010, houses under construction and for which full planning permission has been granted If available brownfield sites listed in the SHLAA are taken into account plus windfalls at a modest rate of 9 per year the required 400 houses can be achieved without using this site (completed, under construction and with full planning permission 193, brownfield sites from SHLAA 74 + 144 windfall sites (9 per year to 2030) = 411)

Section 15 page 311 site CS 26 Royal London and page 315 CS 27 Wilmslow Business Park

Employment Land

Unsound because not positively prepared to meet objectively assessed requirements and not legally compliant because, contrary to theNational Planning Policy Framework - NPPF and Nick Boles Guidelines of 6th March 2014, it allocates greenbelt land for employment use where no exceptional circumstances apply.

The Employment Land Review (Appendix D Evidence and Links item 24 Cheshire East Employment Land Review (2012) p130 states that the 5.80ha of the 14.9ha site SU-WM01 on Altrincham Road should be considered for employment allocation. This has now been developed by Waters and accounts for more than the 3.40 -3.96ha employment land required in Wilmslow over the 20 year period of the Plan (page 130 Employment Land Review. There are 130,00 0 sq ft of empty office space in Wilmslow 10,000 of which are at Royal London. The 4.2 - 4.9ha at Royal London and Wilmslow Business Park both in the greenbelt are not therefore required and there are absolutely no 'special circumstances' that could possibly justify allocating greenbelt land to provide employment land in excess of the objectively assessed requirement.

Change required – remove both these sites from the Plan.

Section 15 Safeguarded Land page339 CS 35 Prestbury Road and page 341 CS 36 Upcast Lane

Safeguarded Land

Unsound because not positively prepared to meet objectively assessed requirements and not legally compliant because the NPPF does not 'require' safeguarded land to be allocated and but states that Local Authorities 'may' allocate safeguarded land. No analysis whatever has been attempted to assess possible housing need in Wilmslow beyond 2030 and evidence to date shows that considerable numbers of sites will come forward as windfalls. No justification is given for allocating sites within the greenbelt.

The Local Plan Strategy misquotes the requirements of the NPPF (Page 330 15.415 and 15.418)

Change required – remove or substantially reduce the amount of land to be safeguarded.

Summary points

· Windfalls

· No allowance made for windfalls

· Brownfield sites not included in numbers and no evidence of a proper assessment of brownfield site availability

· House commitments to date

· If brownfield sites and windfalls are included there is overprovision of strategic sites to meet the required number of houses for Wilmslow

· Changes to the plan needed:

· Houses on the Royal London site are definitely not needed to reach required total

· Land at Adlington Road could be safeguarded for a further period and will probably not be required for housing provision because of the number of brownfield sites and windfalls coming forward

· It is not essential to included safeguarded land in Wilmslow

· No supporting evidence or justification for safeguarded land in Wilmslow. Provision is at best excessive or at worst unnecessary

· Employment land at Waters ignored

· No justification for the overprovision of employment land and on greenbelt

· High growth strategy unnecessary

· SHMA housing figures lower

Please act now! Your help will keep this town a green and pleasant place to live!

Tags:

Residents of Wilmslow